Talk:Thoughts and prayers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Video of Obama

Resolved

Given the "[not in citation given]" tag, should the video of Obama be kept? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What tag? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done Oh, it seems this video has been long removed; not to be confused with another Obama video I put in 2 weeks ago about. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The article says it's a frequently used US term, so I don't see why it should be expanded internationally. It defines it as mostly being used in the US.

Any thoughts on this? Evieliam (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not exclusively a US term. In less than a minute's searching, I found it used in Australia, New Zealand, Pacific islands, South Africa, Canada, and England.--Dmol (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It’s almost exclusively a reference to things that transpired in America, even for most international references. I can understand how this might be unintuitive. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No it's not used exclusively about American events. Again, a quick search shows it used about events in Australia, Ireland, France, New Zealand. United Kingdom. Definitely in widespread use outside of USA and about an international range of events. --Dmol (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Do an internet search for "thoughts and prayers" site:.ie, "Christchurch" (Earthquake) etc. This is commonly used for natural disasters all over the Anglosphere, not just the US.

Note that the term is clearly used from before 2010, and that stacking references from the last year is a violation of WP:RECENTISM. -- Callinus (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Evieliam, Dmol, Discuss-Dubious, and Callinus: I actually Agree with Evieliam and Discuss-Dubious. Yes, it is used outside the U.S. but it is not notable outside the U.S.. I seriously think we should limit the scope of the article solely to the U.S.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you are defining "notable" for the term. Why limit to the US when clearly widespread elsewhere--Dmol (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Dmol: You may be pleased to know that the article no longer explicitly defines the term as American. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with what Dubious is saying. The only reason "thoughts and prayers" is worth writing about in Wikipedia is that the usage of the expression (i.e. as a substitute for solving the problem) after mass shootings in the United States has been criticized. It's not notable outside of the gun control/countererrorism context. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

StAnslem has taken it upon themself to delete large sections of the page that are very relevent and should not be removed. Bodconn (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is notable outside the US hence quotes from Vatican and other religious leaders, the contrast to how other legal states have legislated show grief, compassion and thought which i have no doubt was gained in some cases by meditation, prayer, contemplation and other methods of group communication irrespective of the religion followed with respect to existing statute and the actions taken for the security of the populus of that state through a democratic concensus, examples and exemplars of that process can lead to insight by removal of ignorance, so i argue that relevant reactions to disaster and mass loss of life are implict to the discussion. Hence i would like those international examples to be re-instated and augmented. Bodconn (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

2018 YouTube headquarters shooting

Trumped Tweeted T+Ps re: 2018 YouTube headquarters shooting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

New Testament verses

As inspired by a blog post:

  • But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. —James 1:22–1:24
  • For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. —Romans 2:13
  • Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. —1 John 3:18
  • So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. —James 4:17
  • "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ... And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it." —Matthew 7:21;7:26–27
  • But he answered them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." —Luke 8:21
  • But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" —Luke 11:28
  • Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. —John 13:16–17

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Why Scott Morrison?

@Richard-of-Earth: I added Morrison's "thoughts and prayers" because it's a (somewhat rare) example of the phrase being used internationally. Most of the other examples in this section are uses by American politicians. Also, Morrison has received considerable criticism for offering T&P without taking further action; this is comparable with how American politicians have treated the issue of gun control, and contrast this with PM Ardern's push to have new laws passed in NZ after Christchurch. In addition, the thoughts and prayers are being offered here in response to an ongoing natural disaster, rather than gun violence/mass shooting incidents. For these reasons, I felt it was notable and worth mentioning.

That said, I do need to add context (criticism of Morrison's actions, possibly including a shortened trip to Hawaii) but wasn't sure exactly where to put it. This section appears to be a bare listing of the times T&P were mentioned. The other sections are mostly discussing the effect of T&P in the context of gun control, and as this is in relation to a natural disaster, doesn't really apply. I'll play with rearranging the article in the near future to see if I can carve out some space to explain why Morrison appears in this article.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I do see why it is there, It just needs more context in the article so everyone who reads it can see it. Perhaps the problem is the way the article is done it self. Lets leave the tag on it to see if someone else can come up with an improvement. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article needs to be renamed

This article has grown quite a bit and says little about the phrase "thoughts are prays" now and is mostly about controversy over slacktivism from politicians. I run into problems with editors linking the phrase where there is no mention or implication of the controversy and had to revert them and have seen a few frustrating conversations about this:

User talk:JesseRafe#Unlinking thoughts and prayers.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 74#Remove link to Thoughts and prayers,
Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting/Archive 1#"Thoughts and prayers",
Talk:Condolences#Proposed merge with Thoughts and prayers,
Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting/Archive 2#"prayers and condolences",
Talk:Capital Gazette shooting#Thoughts and Prayers,

Recently another user linked a bunch, but decided to be reasonable about it. When Another Believer created the article he encouraged others to add to it here and here. It is clear to me that the article should renamed to something like Thoughts and prayers controversy, but I would like to hear thoughts from others. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Globalize" tag?

@Peter Ormond: This strikes me as weird. This phrase is, at least to my mind (as someone who grew up in Ireland and now lives in Japan), associated strongly with American politics in particular, so what changes could be made to make the article reflect a more "global" perspective? Should it provide a basic overview of the history of gun violence in the United States, NRA lobbying, etc., so that readers not familiar with the cultural context can understand the topic better? Or does "thoughts and prayers" mean something different in another context that I am not aware of? (Yes, I can imagine an Irish or other non-American politician saying "Our thoughts and prayers are with such-and-such" and not necessarily meaning "I oppose making changes to the law or public infrastructure to prevent a reoccurrence", but in that context it's just an expression and would not meet the requirements of WP:NOTDICT; we have an article on this topic because of its use in American politics and media by those who oppose gun regulation.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: If that's the case, then the article needs to be renamed per User:Richard-of-Earth in the above section. In some articles, editors link the phrase where there is no mention of the controversy, so that's why I added the Globalize tag. If the phrase is "associated strongly with American politics", then the article should be renamed. Peter Ormond 💬 02:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. A number of other phrases in Category:Political neologisms (and probably others that are more difficult to find) are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article because of the controversy surrounding them rather than because of the intrinsic noteworthiness of the "topics", and none of them seem to have "controversy" in their titles. Think of the children leaps to mind as a very similar case. Moreover, while Thoughts and prayers controversy (with no italics or quotation marks) is not as bad as Think of the children controversy (which implies that someone is being implored to think about the "children controversy", whatever that is), neither would make a very good article title. Could you provide an example of In some articles, editors link the phrase where there is no mention of the controversy? If it's being used in a non-American, non-gun-violence context, then I would say it should just not be linked, but I'd have to see it in context. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
For example, see this. The Queen said, in general that "her thoughts and prayers were with the families of soldiers killed in recent months", and there is no mention of any controversy or gun violence. But an editor has linked the phrase to this article. The article can be renamed to Thoughts and prayers (political neologism). Peter Ormond 💬 04:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
It would be Think of the children (rhetorical tactic), but is a good example and puts this article in perspective. However that article about a phrase is not being linked inappropriately to smear politicians and create WP:EASTEREGGS. But if this article is to be about both the phrase and the controversy then a more global treatment of the phrase would be equivalent uses in other cultures. The article does address the controversy in other countries, but that could be expanded. As for examples of inappropriate links: [1], [2], [3], [4]. These are just a few of the dozens of edits I made unlinking these. I do not get to just mass unlink, I have to review each article to see if there is context for the link. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the tag, as it doesn't seem like there's a clear consensus it reflects an actual issue in the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


Thoughts and prayers → Thoughts and prayers (political neologism) – This article deals strongly with American politics and with gun violence in particular, so I would suggest renaming the article to prevent unnecessary links in other articles, where there is no mention of the controversy. Peter Ormond 💬 05:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Leaning oppose. The political phrase is clearly primary over any other topic by this name in the encyclopedia. A disambiguation page at the base page name would be useless because virtually all the links would be intended for the political phrase. BD2412 T 06:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. I could see a use for a Thoughts and prayers (disambiguation) page since there are a few pages named "Thoughts and prayers" (Thoughts and Prayers (film), Thoughts and Prayers (album), Thoughts and Prayers (song), Thoughts and Prayers (BoJack Horseman)) but I don't think Thoughts and prayers should be the disambiguation page itself, since, as BD2412 said, I imagine people are almost always talking about the political use of the phrase if they are linking to it. Shuri42 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The phrase is the primary subject, others are derivative. To subcategorize it will make wikipedia searches less effective by requiring additional effort on the part of the user. Trackinfo (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems like a clear wp:primarytopic, the dab page doesn't have anything to suggest it's used in a different way, do you have any refs?—blindlynx (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Is there any indication that the phrase is new? It doesn't really seem like a neologism. It is just a phrase constructed of ordinary words, and was not really coined by anyone in particular. The subject of the article is also not that particular phrase, but also all the other similar phrases and expressions of condolence that do not offer corrective action. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would prefer Thoughts and prayers controversy Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose First off, I'd like to thank Peter Ormond for pinging me to notify me that he opened an RM immediately after my saying that I would oppose such an RM. Oh, wait... Yeah, my rationale was stated yesterday. This also didn't occur to me until seeing Shuri42's comment just now, but the other articles appear to be derivative, although I will admit that the only one I'm familiar with is the BoJack episode (which I was assuming did not have its own article because it's a single 20-minute episode of a show that was released in a full-season drop on Netflix). Hijiri 88 (聖やや)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thoughts_and_prayers/Archive_1&oldid=1061682988"